From: Julio Huato
IMO, Friedman's NRU is inherently "monetary" in the sense of Keynes (or Patinkin or McCallum). Friedman's NRU doesn't refer to a theoretical equilibrium involving real variables alone, with money to be incorporated later as an afterthought. Friedman's theoretical market framework was Keynesian, i.e. it stipulated "asset" markets (including money, where money is not merely a veil, but the perfectly "liquid" asset). In other words, implicitly, Friedman's NRU assumes a "monetarist" monetary policy. I remember that when I read the Monetary History in the early 2000s (and, for some reason, things I read this recently are blurrier in my head than those I read before, and please don't ask me about what I read this morning), I noted on the margin that Friedman and Schwartz were implicitly rejecting the notion of money neutrality even in the long run! Keynes' influence on Friedman was really huge. So, my impression is that, overall, Friedman's macroeconomics is intrinsically "monetary." This is precisely the reason why the New Classicals consider Friedman a Keynesian, not a "classical." ^^^^^ CB: Julio, does Keynes' theory not hold the labor theory of value/law of value ? Some "money theory" of value ? Money is a source of value. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
